- The Bombay High Court on Tuesday expressed its displeasure over a report submitted by the Maharashtra government on the status of installation of CCTV cameras inside police stations across the state and said the whole process was a “farce” and the money allotted for the project has been wasted.
- As per newspaper report the division bench comprises of Justices S J Kathawalla and M N Jadhav had last week sought a report from the government providing details of functional as well as non-functional CCTVs (closed-circuit television cameras) at all police stations. The court had passed the order when it was informed during the hearing of a petition that the CCTVs installed in a particular police station in Maharashtra were not functioning for the past two months.
- “A common man goes to the police station thinking that the Supreme Court guidelines are being followed. And we do not know what is happening to the Rs 60 crore allocated by the state for CCTV installation project,” Justice Kathawalla observed. As per the report submitted by the government, there are 1,089 police stations in the state. So far, 6,092 cameras have been installed in 547 police stations of which 5,639 are functional, while the remaining are inoperative. The court pointed out as per the government’s report, Rs 6 lakh had been spent for installation of CCTVs in each police station.
“I have got CCTVs in my house, but I have not spent more than Rs 35,000 for that,” Justice Jadhav said, adding even after spending Rs 6 lakh, the recording period of the CCTVs was not as long as what was stated in the SC order.” “They don’t want it to be recorded. They don’t want to show to any courts or authorities what is happening in police stations. This is all a farce, and they do not want the courts to know. Rs 60 crore wasted,” Justice Kathawalla noted. The bench fixed the next hearing on February 21 and asked Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni to provide “active assistance” to the court over the matter.
Videography of the crime scene: The Supreme Court, vide Order dated 03.04.2018 in [SLP (Crl) No. 2302 of 2017] Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 5 SCC 311, directed that a Central Oversight Body (“COB”) be set up by the Ministry of Home Affairs to implement the plan of action with respect to the use of videography in the crime scene during the investigation.
Oversight mechanism in every state: This Court, while considering the directions issued in D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal & Others (2015) 8 SCC 744, held that there was a need for further directions that in every State an oversight mechanism be created whereby an independent committee can study the CCTV camera footages and periodically publish a report of its observations thereon. The COB was further directed to issue appropriate instructions in this regard at the earliest. This Court further directed that the COB may issue appropriate directions from time to time so as to ensure that use of videography becomes a reality in a phased manner, the first phase of which be implemented by 15.07.2018. The crime scene videography ought to be introduced at least at some places as per viability and priority determined by the COB.
Formation of the COB: Pursuant to the aforesaid directions a COB was constituted by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 09.05.201 to oversee the implementation of the use of photography and videography in the crime scene by the State / Union Territory Government and other Central Agencies, to suggest the possibility of setting up a Central Server for implementation of videography, and to issue appropriate directions so as to ensure that use of videography becomes a reality in a phased manner. Accordingly, directions were issued to the Administrators of the Union Territory, State Governments and other Central Agencies for effective implementation of the use of photography and videography at the crime scenes, and to furnish an Action Taken Report on the implementation of the use of videography in the crime scene.
Oversight committee composition: So far as constitution of Oversight Committees in accordance with our Order dated 03.04.2018 is concerned, this should be done at the State and District levels. The State Level Oversight Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “SLOC”) must consist of:
(i) The Secretary/Additional Secretary, Home Department;
(ii) Secretary/Additional Secretary, Finance Department;
(iii) The Director General/Inspector General of Police; and
(iv) The Chairperson/member of the State Women’s Commission.
DLOC: The District Level Oversight Committee (“DLOC”) is concerned, this should comprise of:
(i) The Divisional Commissioner/ Commissioner of Divisions/ Regional Commissioner/ Revenue Commissioner Division of the District (by whatever name called);
(ii) The District Magistrate of the District;
(iii) A Superintendent of Police of that District; and
(iv) A mayor of a municipality within the District/ a Head of the Zilla Panchayat in rural areas.
It shall be the duty of the SLOC to see that the directions passed by this Court are carried out. Amongst others, the duties shall consist of:
a) Purchase, distribution and installation of CCTVs and its equipment;
b) Obtaining the budgetary allocation for the same;
c) Continuous monitoring of maintenance and upkeep of CCTVs and its equipment;
d) Carrying out inspections and addressing the grievances received from the DLOC; and
e) To call for monthly reports from the DLOC and immediately address any concerns like faulty equipment.
Likewise, the DLOC shall have the following obligations:
a) Supervision, maintenance and upkeep of CCTVs and its equipment;
b) Continuous monitoring of maintenance and upkeep of CCTVs and its equipment;
c) To interact with the Station House Officer (hereinafter referred to as the “SHO”) as to the functioning and maintenance of CCTVs and its equipment; and
d) To send monthly reports to the SLOC about the functioning of CCTVs and allied equipment.
e) To review footage stored from CCTVs in the various Police Stations to check for any human rights violation that may have occurred but are not reported.
Responsibilities of SHO towards maintenance of SHO: The duty and responsibility for the working, maintenance and recording of CCTVs shall be that of the SHO of the police station concerned. It shall be the duty and obligation of the SHO to immediately report to the DLOC any fault with the equipment or malfunctioning of CCTVs. If the CCTVs are not functioning in a particular police station, the concerned SHO shall inform the DLOC of the arrest / interrogations carried out in that police station during the said period and forward the said record to the DLOC. If the concerned SHO has reported malfunctioning or non-functioning of CCTVs of a particular Police Station, the DLOC shall immediately request the SLOC for repair and purchase of the equipment, which shall be done immediately.
Responsibility of DG of Police: The Director General/Inspector General of Police of each State and Union Territory should issue directions to the person in charge of a Police Station to entrust the SHO of the concerned Police Station with the responsibility of assessing the working condition of the CCTV cameras installed in the police station and also to take corrective action to restore the functioning of all non-functional CCTV cameras. The SHO should also be made responsible for CCTV data maintenance, backup of data, fault rectification etc.
Installation points of the CCTV: The State and Union Territory Governments should ensure that CCTV cameras are installed in each and every Police Station functioning in the respective State and/or Union Territory. Further, in order to ensure that no part of a Police Station is left uncovered, it is imperative to ensure that CCTV cameras are installed at all entry and exit points; main gate of the police station; all lock-ups; all corridors; lobby/the reception area; all verandas/outhouses, Inspector’s room; Sub-Inspector’s room; areas outside the lock-up room; station hall; in front of the police station compound; outside (not inside) washrooms/toilets; Duty Officer’s room; back part of the police station etc.
Capacity of CCTV vision and audio video quality: CCTV systems that have to be installed must be equipped with night vision and must necessarily consist of audio as well as video footage. In areas in which there is either no electricity and/or internet, it shall be the duty of the States/Union Territories to provide the same as expeditiously as possible using any mode of providing electricity, including solar/wind power. The internet systems that are provided must also be systems which provide clear image resolutions and audio. Most important of all is the storage of CCTV camera footage which can be done in digital video recorders and/or network video recorders. CCTV cameras must then be installed with such recording systems so that the data that is stored thereon shall be preserved for a period of 18 months. If the recording equipment, available in the market today, does not have the capacity to keep the recording for 18 months but for a lesser period of time, it shall be mandatory for all States, Union Territories and the Central Government to purchase one which allows storage for the maximum period possible, and, in any case, not below 1 year. It is also made clear that this will be reviewed by all the States so as to purchase equipment which is able to store the data for 18 months as soon as it is commercially available in the market. The affidavit of compliance to be filed by all States and Union Territories and Central Government shall clearly indicate that the best equipment available as of date has been purchased.
Complaints of custodial deaths: Whenever there is information of force being used at police stations resulting in serious injury and/or custodial deaths, it is necessary that persons be free to complain for a redressal of the same. Such complaints may not only be made to the State Human Rights Commission, which is then to utilise its powers, more particularly under Sections 17 and 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, for redressal of such complaints, but also to Human Rights Courts, which must then be set up in each District of every State/Union Territory under Section 30 of the aforesaid Act. The Commission/Court can then immediately summon CCTV camera footage in relation to the incident for its safe keeping, which may then be made available to an investigation agency in order to further process the complaint made to it.
Other office directed for CCTV Installation: In addition, the Union of India is also directed to install CCTV cameras and recording equipment in the offices of:
(i) Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
(ii) National Investigation Agency (NIA)
(iii) Enforcement Directorate (ED)
(iv) Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB)
(v) Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI)
(vi) Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO)
(vii) Any other agency which carries out interrogations and has the power of arrest.
As most of these agencies carry out interrogation in their office(s), CCTVs shall be compulsorily installed in all offices where such interrogation and holding of accused takes place in the same manner as it would in a police station. The COB shall perform the same function as the SLOC for the offices of investigative/enforcement agencies mentioned above both in Delhi and outside Delhi wherever they be located.
Court directions on Clear information in Police Station about cctv monitoring: The SLOC and the COB (where applicable) shall give directions to all Police Stations, investigative/enforcement agencies to prominently display at the entrance and inside the police stations/offices of investigative/enforcement agencies about the coverage of the concerned premises by CCTV. This shall be done by large posters in English, Hindi and vernacular language.
Inform about the right to complain at NHRC: It shall be clearly mentioned therein that a person has a right to complain about human rights violations to the National/State Human Rights Commission, Human Rights Court or the Superintendent of Police or any other authority empowered to take cognizance of an offence. It shall further mention that CCTV footage is preserved for a certain minimum time period, which shall not be less than six months, and the victim has a right to have the same secured in the event of violation of his human rights.
Similar directions by the Punjab and Haryana High Court: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered that interrogation rooms would also be covered by the Supreme Court’s directions on installing CCTV cameras in police stations. Such e-surveillance can help in checking whether extrajudicial methods are being adopted during the interrogation of the accused, thereby reducing the possibility of custodial torture. The apex court had earlier slammed the Central and state governments for their lackadaisical approach towards installing CCTV cameras not only in police stations but also in the offices of investigative agencies. The states have demanded a budgetary allocation and a liberal time-frame for executing the project. In January 14, 2022: While dealing with a petition against the inhuman treatment meted out against an accused in jail by investigating agency, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed a meticulous following of all provisions of the Cr.P.C., including Section 41-B, 41-C, 41-D and 54, 55 and 55-A and observed that no part of police stations including interrogation room would be left uncovered by CCTV surveillance. [ Kaushal v. State of Haryana and Others]
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SHAHRUKH JIMI KATHIWALLA
Bombay High Court
